[MacLoggerContest] Any other topics?

[John Bastin]

On Feb 28, 2005, at 4:02 PM, Jonathan G0DVJ wrote:

>
> On Feb 28, 2005, at 5:19 pm, K1GQ wrote:
>> It is true that there has been little incentive for existing software 
>> to interoperate at the network level, and none does that I am aware 
>> of.  As Apple computer enthusiasts, we're painfully aware that pretty 
>> much all of the work needed to implement interoperability will rest 
>> on our shoulders.
>
> This is the bit I have trouble subscribing to!    Why should it rest 
> with Mac developers?

Well, unfortunately, because we're trying to get our foot in the 
doorway to an entrenched status quo. The developers of other software 
really have no incentive to spend uncompensated time writing in 
compatibility with a platform that none of their customers use.

> If we can develop an insanely great contest logger for Mac OSX then 
> ... [putting tongue firmly in cheek and bullet-proof vest on!] ... 
> those that can afford to have the best station (aka KC1XX et al.) will 
> also want to have the best computing platform and logging software and 
> so invest in 11 Mac Mini's & MLC version n (where n is not too small a 
> number !!)

Realistically, KC1XX et al. have priorities for their "big gun" 
stations and those priorities are the best radios, the best antennas 
and the best operators. Computers and software are far down the list of 
investment items. CT and NA are attractive and widely-used programs 
that have one VERY big quality - they run in DOS, which means the 
contesters can have very good software running on the cheapest, salvage 
and refurbished hardware available. WriteLog is a popular program for 
the newer users who already have hardware that came running Windows, 
but the old-timers are still DOS people.

Despite my earlier comment, probably the main thing that would be nice 
for our software is that it be able to handle data in currently-used 
amateur radio formats, meaning Cabrillo and ADIF, for purposes of 
moving data from one machine to another or even from platform to 
platform. Let's face it, despite what Bill dreamed about, I'm not going 
into an established multi-multi setup with my PowerBook to sit down and 
operate; that multi-multi already has computers at every radio and a 
couple of spares if needed. Even if the software could converse, the 
hardware nightmare of going in there with a 'strange' computer and 
trying to wire it up would only be counter-productive for the contest 
operation. And in the end, that's the bottom line: does it help the 
score? If not, it's not getting in the door.

So in the beginning, let's have contesting software that works for the 
single-operator and multi-single operations, where the guy (or gal) who 
wants to enter the contest just happens to already be a Mac user. If 
he's a single-op, he wants to use the platform he's comfortable with, 
and if he's hosting a multi-single, the ops coming in will use whatever 
is there. They don't care, as long as it helps the score.

Important points? Here's my vote:

Radio control
CW/FSK generation (copy is necessary for FSK, not for CW)
Fast dupe checking, whether there are 5 contacts in the log or 5000
Automatic journaling, so even if you have a power failure, NOTHING is 
lost.
Native coverage of a wide range of contests, with the ability to change 
the entry format to whatever is required for a particular 'test, and to 
accurately compute the score at the end. An ongoing display of the 
current score isn't really necessary, but a display of 
multipliers/bands needed would be a plus.

73,
John E Bastin, K8AJS
jbastin at sssnet.com
http://www.qsl.net/k8ajs/